Pagina's

The phenomenon of the 'Europlastics' was first observed and named by Dr. North. Autonomous Mind elaborated on the concept here and most notably (and recently) here.

But lest you think this is strictly a UK phenomenon, I give you our intrepid PM of the Dutch 'Danish' cabinet. You know, the one that promised to roll back the powers of the EUnion in favour of the nation state.

Quite recently your blogger went off into some blue language over this. And today, on the very day the German Constitutional court decided ah so conveniently that yes, the Greek bail-out is legal after all, we were treated to this:

Cabinet calls for EU commissioner to ensure eurozone rules are kept

The Dutch cabinet supports a far tougher approach to ensuring
eurozone countries do not break the rules on monetary union and believes
they should leave the euro if they are not prepared to enforce stronger
sanctions, prime minister Mark Rutte told MPs in a briefing on
Wednesday.

‘This briefing sketches a structural approach which gets to the heart
of the problem, strengthening budgetary discipline and ensuring strict
adherence to the rules, under independent monitoring,’ Rutte said.
These rules would be accompanied by ‘severe sanctions which countries
will have to agree to if they want to remain part of the eurozone,’ the
prime minister said in the nine-page document.

According to the Volkskrant, the rest of Europe is not ready for this form of ‘euro-federalism’. Apparently, the 'rest of Europe' includes a goodly portion of the quite astonished Dutch public. This is defending our sovereignty? This is rolling back the dead hand from Brussels?

The conclusion has become inevitable that our current government, in stead of being the alternative sought by the Dutch public when they overwhelmingly voted for the 'other guys', is just more of the same poison we don't want. Professing a certain measure of 'euroscepticism' they play the tunes that Brussels calls at every opportunity. It is the Europlastics that are governing the Netherlands.

5
reacties:

DP111
zei

Suppose you took part in a gambling session in which the house croupier asked you to pick any one of three “different” cards.1. Ace – you win2. King – you win3. Queen – you the punter loose.That is 2:1 in your favour.Unbeknown to you was that all three cards were “Queens” but of different hue.Would a casino be legally allowed to run such a game. If so, would the punters have legitimate cause to take forceful action on the casino?

------------------------------------------------------------

If one does not like the analogy to a casino, what we have in the UK is a political cartel . Similar cartels operate in the rest of the EU. Also, cartel in each country in the EU cooperates with the rest, setting up a unified policy. As such policies are made public in different languages, it is difficult for citizens to see that they are really quite the same. From Wiki: A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.[1] Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products.

"As such policies are made public in different languages, it is difficult for citizens to see that they are really quite the same."

That is one of the core issues. And a litmus test for the origin of any piece of new legislation. I first consciously noticed this when we were still living in Germany: At one time you'd see the same subject (road-pricing, smart energy meters, electronic medical files) crop up, seemingly independently, in the Dutch, German and UK press (and on those occasions I was really paying attention: The French MSM as well).

In all those instances the proposals were presented as 'national' initiatives. But the entire picture was one of close coordination. I guess this is part of the Monnet method: The more provincial national politics become (and My Lord, has Dutch politics become narrow-minded and petty over the last 25 years), the less conspicuous the dead hand of the EUnion is.

Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usuallyinvolve homogeneous products.

We have a cartel. A political cartel is far far worse then a commercial ones, as it destroys democracy, i.e., giving a real choice to the people.

Now if companies are found guilty of organising a cartel, they are subject to heavy fines and even imprisonment for the directors. Why should the same principle not be applied with greater force to political cartels?

This article in Telegraph no lesshttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100103806/muslims-feel-so-british-theyre-ready-to-die-for-this-country/#dsq-contentAs for attitudes to Islam, read the comments. I think the blogs are winning despite the BBC and the MSM.

Minds you, you were dead on about the comments tearing that atrocious bit rose-tinted, eyes-wide-shut and fingers-plugged-in-ears daydreaming. Vicious but bang on. Maybe your right about blogs vs. the MSM as well. That'd be hopeful.